Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
It's going to be critical for people to get the right kind of care, and that means medical staff must be very precise about the kind of care they provide, and the kind of medications that would be used. The only way to do that is to make sure the ID of the person receiving care is known without any doubt.
How are these people going to provide proper, and critically important ID, if it's impossible for them to do so for something so simple as voting?
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
I imagine it's reasonable to suggest Fraud is happening to some degree, . The human condition suggests there will always be someone attempting to beat any system that exists. And even now there has at least been occasional legitimate cases. But in a more over arching notion, you're right that there's a big question of how much and what's it's impact.
In that regard, I can't honestly answer. It could be that the amount of Fraud is ridiculously miniscule and entirely insignificant. Or it could be a sizable portion that could have an impact. Or it could be somewhere in between.
Your comment about proof, and measurable numbers, speaks to my issue though. Essentially, as the laws and methods largely stand now, I don't think there are a lot of very efficient and sure fire ways to absolutely "prove" whether fraud is happening or not. Essentially, the way the system is currently set up, "proving" fraud is extremely difficult. As such, the lack of evidence of substantial fraud at the moment doesn't necessarily convince me or prove to me that fraud simply does not exist or does not exist in any meaningful way. It simply means that it doesn't exist in such a way that can be unquestionably proven under the current system.
To give you an analogy in regards to what I'm saying (though not a direct analogy to this specific situation)....
Say the only way I can "prove" something was stolen is to physically see a person gain possession and remove the item. Then say that I'm sat in front of a brick wall, with a bunch of large diamonds placed behind it. I see two people come up to the wall, disappear behind it, then reappear on the other side with a bag that has an approximately large diamond sized object in it.
Under the current criteria I'm operating under in terms of "proving" something, I can not "prove" that they stole the diamond. If I told someone we should take down that wall so I could see where the Diamonds are sitting to prevent theft, a person could accurately say "Why? There's no proven diamond thefts that are occuring". Technically, they're right...there's no proven diamond thefts occuring because the current structure of the rules make it so that it can't be proven. However, the fact it can't be proven under the given circumstances doesn't necessarily prove that it isn't happening.
What I'm basically saying Boo is that you're right...we can't prove that voter fraud is happening at a significant level. I'm simply suggesting that those who claim there's "proof" that it's happening at an insiginificant level are not believable or credible in my opinion, because I don't believe the current system makes definitive "proof" of such far too difficult to obtain for it to be a meaningful statement to base a decision on either way.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
Question to Anybody: How many states currently offer "free" state photo ID cards to indigent and disabled individuals?
Do as I say, not as I do.....
Even The Daily Show Was Shocked by This Racist GOP Leader's Responses